Environmentalism

Environmentalism is the goal of keeping the environment intact in near or far future. Similar to eugenics, its proponents tend to be ideological and tend to get overly enthusiastic due to runaway virtue signaling and may overlook the difficulties involved, for example, that discouraging procreation will create incels and completely demotivated males.

In 2019, Blackpilled incel forums took part in making fun of Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmentalist, suggesting a slight anti-environmentalist slant of blackpillers.

Contents

In 1968, a Stanford biologist named Paul Ehrlich published the bestselling book The Population Bomb and co-founded the organization Zero Population Growth (later renamed Population Connection), arguing that the growth in global population would lead to famines and ecological crisis. He also suggested that people have no more than two children.

In the 1990s, at least one public environmentalist became even more radically anti-copulation, bordering on radical volceldom. A member of Zero Population Growth named Les Knight launched the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) with the goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed”. He launched a 1996 website explaining his goals.[1]

Although anti-environmentalism existed is small quantities prior to the 1990s, many if not most US conservatives turned against environmentalism slowly starting around 1995 after Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Newt found he could win races easier by opposing shut-down of traditional energy companies, taking inspiration from a local John Bircher Democrat who opposed the EPA and national parks and consistently won in West Georgia.[4]

Democrats in the USA have consistently signaled support for environmentalism, however some feel they do not go far enough, hence the existence of the Green Party and conservative offshoots of the Green Party such as the IGP.

One could argue environmentalism is a fundamentally conservative position, making today's politics a bit odd.

Even though there is merit to the claim that the environment needs to be maintained to prolong future life and avoid a generational conflict between younger and older generations, there is a trade-off to be made between ensuring current social harmony and creating a livable future of the offspring, as a large scale economic restructuring is associated with huge risks. What should not be overlooks it also that the next generation will benefit from the prosperity that is being accumulated in the meanwhile as long the planet remains livable.

Much of social harmony appears to depend on economic growth as it provides a strong incentive to get more stuff from newly created capital rather than from other people. Without growth, things tend to turn into zero-sum games instead, meaning whenever someone wants more he has to get it from others, if necessary by force (e.g. theft, wars etc.). Transitioning to a post-growth economy will inevitably risk this and thus has the tendency to divide people. Once it is socially acceptable to put high priority on the planet to be preserved, it is easy to conclude that the world is overpopulated and hence authoritarian leaders may decide for drastic measures of decimating the population (for their own automated paradise of course).

Growth is synonymous with carbon emissions and environmental degradation until cleaner energy sources are deployed/discovered or ways of consuming less, which is aggravated by the fact that women prefer men who consume a lot.[5]